Posted 4 years ago on Jan. 16, 2012, 12:22 p.m. EST by LetsGetReal
(1420)
from Grants, NM
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The complaint challenges the constitutionality of Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act and seeks a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

"This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.

The supine and gutless Democratic Party, which would have feigned outrage if George W. Bush had put this into law, appears willing, once again, to grant Obama a pass. But I won’t. What he has done is unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous."

I blame everyone who voted for it, and I suspect Hedges does too. The complaint names the president and the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, because by virtue of their positions, they are the people who would be ordering detentions under this law. Implementation of the law is not a power of congress.

[+]-5 points
by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
4 years ago

Pay Attention

On November 17, 2011 the Obama administration released a policy statement noting that it opposed the detainee matters legislation in the NDAA and that if it was not changed, then the President would veto the legislation.

The house and senate then held up ultimate passage of the bill until the very last moment - when a veto would have resulted in many functions of government going unfunded until such time as the Congress rewrote the legislation.

Obama did indeed object to some provisions in the original bill and threatened a veto if these were not remedied. Unfortunately, his objections were not based on civil liberties or due process grounds. He objected because he wanted even more power. After congress gave him the powers he wanted, he was happy to sign it. Glenn Greenwald explains it well:

"Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.

Even the one substantive objection the White House expressed to the bill — mandatory military detention for accused American Terrorists captured on U.S. soil — was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that — the definitive, conclusive proof — is that Sen. Carl Levin has several times disclosed that it was the White House which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted U.S. citizens from military detention (see the clip of Levin explaining this in the video below). In other words, this was an example of the White House demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraints (the prohibition on military detention for Americans captured on U.S. soil). That’s because the White House’s North Star on this bill — as they repeatedly made clear — was Presidential discretion: they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.

Any doubt that this was the White House’s only concern with the bill is now dispelled by virtue of the President’s willingness to sign it after certain changes were made in Conference between the House and Senate. Those changes were almost entirely about removing the parts of the bill that constrained his power, and had nothing to do with improving the bill from a civil liberties perspective. Once the sole concern of the White House was addressed — eliminating limits on the President’s power — they were happy to sign the bill even though (rather: because) none of the civil liberties assaults were fixed. "

2) An injunction against executive enforcement of the bill for the duration of the suit.

The whole point is that, if NDAA 2012 stands with Section 1031, Hedges and other journalists will not be able to do their jobs, and thus their free speech is curtailed, and their ability to earn a living (legal actions have to be tied to actionable damages).

[+]-5 points
by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
4 years ago

Leon Panetta on NDAA Section 1032 of the original Senate Version:

Section 1032. We recognize your efforts to address some of our objections to section 1032. However, it continues to be the case that any advantages to the Department of Defense in particular and our national security in general in section 1032 of requiring that certain individuals be held by the military are, at best, unclear. This provision restrains the Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.

Moreover, the failure of the revised text to clarify that section 1032 applies to individuals captured abroad, as we have urged, may needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the United States.

Next, the revised language adds a new qualifier to associated force''--that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda.'' In our view, this new language unnecessarily complicates our ability to interpret and implement this section.

Further, the new version of section 1032 makes it more apparent that there is an intent to extend the certification requirements of section 1033 to those covered by section 1032 that we may want to transfer to a third country. In other words, the certification requirement that currently applies only to Guantanamo detainees would permanently extend to a whole new category of future captures. This imposes a whole new restraint on the flexibility we need to continue to pursue our counterterrorism efforts.From letter by Penetta sent to Carl Levin

Presidential Signing states

On December 31, 2011 President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law. When he signed the law, he also issued a signing statement on how he would interpret the law. In that signing statement, President Obama clarifies that the law does indeed allow for the arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens.

The President then asserts that he will not use the law for these purposes and that the inclusion of the language is counter to the Constitution and US traditions. This declaration is counter to Senator Levin's statements that the Obama administration requested that language which would have prevented the law from applying to US citizens be removed.

Did you happen to catch Bill Maher last Fri? That Debbie Wiesman, who I normally would give the time-of-day to, was genuinely surprised when she was not allowed to make the exact same claim you made here. Maher and Riner (Rob) shot her down before she could finish saying "signing statement".

There is real lib anger over this, not just whack-a-doodle Libertarians.

[+]-4 points
by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
4 years ago

Yeah - I get it. I also get that there is a bit of spin over it as a result - and because it pertains to terrorists I haven't examined it as closely as the issue itself merits.

I keep pointing out that I haven't been arrested yet - I take that as a positive sign.

I think if you really want to create change on this issue, you have to accept that the provisions in the final version of NDAA section 1021 simply reaffirms authority the President already has, going back to 2001, and extends that authority to the U.S.

Ultimately the problem is in treating terrorism as an act of war. That is the root from which all of this grows.

Terrorists aren't warriors and I greatly resent the notion that they are. They are common criminals. No more. No less.